Of Flying And Walking

In September of 2007 when the Presiding Bishop introduced the group that presented the plan for the reorganization of the Church Center, she used the image of building a plane while flying it. I suppose she thought it was an apt analogy coming from a pilot. A few months later the Evangelism and Congregational Life Center had an off-site retreat to do some visioning. The outside facilitator was very good, but he brought along a copy of this video:



Few of us were amused, in spite of our nervous laughter. It takes a lot of focus to fly a plane. So does building one. Divided energies do not make for smooth flight or smooth construction. The image has become our transition period--rough and ragged.

Last month at a meeting of the Diocesan Christian Education Officers (did the bishop of West Texas realize he was naming my friend Lou the CEO of the diocese when he gave her that title?), our guest speaker used a different image. She spoke about building the path while walking it. I found it a much more manageable and doable image. You can only move forward on a path as you complete the next piece of it. It's probably also more in line with what my life is like right now, taking one step at a time, working forward toward a goal but not necessarily being able to see the goal.

Some might say that the flying plane image shows more vision. I would point out that Daniel Boone had as much vision crossing the Appalachians as Charles Lindbergh did crossing the Atlantic.

Peace,
Jeff
(6)

It Was Only A Matter Of Time

The Living Church reports

Sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, according to a legal memorandum that has begun circulating among members of the House of Bishops.

A copy of the April 21 document seen by a reporter representing The Living Church states Bishop Jefferts Schori demonstrated a “willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor” in her handling of the cases of bishops Robert W. Duncan, John-David Schofield and William Cox, and that she “subverted” the “fundamental polity” of The Episcopal Church in the matter of the Diocese of San Joaquin.

The article's author, the Rev. George Conger, also posted the story on his own blog. Conger began trumpeting this line of thought back in March following the House of Bishops' meeting.

The timing of Conger's release of his story--within hours of this morning's release of the Presiding Bishop's letter to the House of Bishops regarding the process related to deposition, inhibition, renunciation and resignation of bishops--is not coincidental.

Nor is it surprising that Matt Kennedy and the usual cohort of commentors at Stand Firm are all over the story. Although the comments have not reached their usual level of vitriol at the time of this writing, I include here Mark Harris' warning regarding Stand Firm.

It was only a matter of time before the conservatives attempted action directly against the Presiding Bishop. The only thing that surprises me is that they waited so long.

Peace,
Jeffri

Just How Many Wise Men Were There?

Today was one of the rare years where Epiphany actually falls on Sunday. At church we had the "Three Kings" bearing gifts in the processional, the postponed Christmas Pageant with Sound Effects, and two baptisms. All in all it was a joyous occasion.

As we went through the service, starting with the reading of the Collect, I could not help but be reminded of the small brouhaha over Katharine's choice of a Christmas card. Here is the Collect for Epiphany, Contemporary version from the 1979 BCP of the Episcopal Church:

O God, by the leading of a star you manifested your only Son to the peoples of the earth: Lead us, who know you now by faith, to your presence, where we may see your glory face to face; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

No mention of manifesting God's only Son to only three men, be they wise men, kings, astrologers, or whatever. And for those who find the 1979 BCP to be a departure from the "classic" BCP, here is the collect from the 1928 BCP of the Episcopal Church:

O God, who by the leading of a star didst manifest thy only-begotten Son to the Gentiles: Mercifully grant, that we, which know thee now by faith, may after this life have the fruition of thy glorious Godhead; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Nope, no mention of the manifestation being just to men there, either. But let's take a look at the 1662 BCP, which seems to be the favorite of those who wrote the first draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant. Oops, identical to the 1928 version. Just to be safe, why not check out the very first BCP, which appeared in 1549 and contains Cranmer's original Collects:

O GOD, which by the leading of a starre diddest manifest thy onelye begotten sonne to the Gentiles; Mercifully graunt, that we, which know thee now by faith, may after this life have the fruicion of thy glorious Godhead; through Christe our Lorde.

Interesting. Except for some archaic spelling and a missing "Amen," it looks like the same collect to me. Hmmmm..."diddest manifest they onelye begotten sonne to the Gentiles." No mention of it being just three men from outside of Judea. I may not be the most educated theologian in the world, but I do know that the Collect, in whatever version you choose, makes an interpretation of the Biblical text, because Matthew specifically mentions "wise men," not "the Gentiles:"

In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, ‘Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.’ When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet:
“And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for from you shall come a ruler
who is to shepherd my people Israel.” ’

Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, ‘Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage.’ When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure-chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road. (Matthew 2:1-12, NRSV)

The Collect interprets the visit of the wise men as a sign that Jesus came for the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

Now look at the passage again. Something struck me as our priest read the Gospel this morning. Do you see it? Or more specifically, do you see what isn't there? What I do not see is a clear enumeration of how many wise men came. We assume three because there were three gifts, but there could have been two or twenty for all we know. In other words, our traditions have interpreted the story as being about three wise men, and many of our visual interpretations of the Nativity depict one of the three as being black, in spite of the fact that Africa is WEST of Judea.

Matthew does not give us any specific place from which these wise men traveled; the Gospel says only that "wise men from the East came to Jerusalem." There is a whole lot of world east of Jerusalem. The wise men might could have come from the Indian subcontinent, China, or even the Americas. So the "multicultural" part of Greg Griffith's jibe is pretty silly. What really irks him, and many of the so-called "orthodox" folks is that the card depicted wise women. The Standing Committee of the Diocese of Fort Worth was not specific about their objections to the card, but given the diocese's stand on women's ordination, we can guess that it probably also had to do with the depiction of wise women.

Even if we stick strictly to Matthew's telling of the story of the "wise men," there is plenty of leeway for interpretation, midrash, and storytelling. When we consider both Gospel accounts of the Nativity, there is space to imagine women--even wise women--visiting Jesus in Bethlehem. There is space to imagine people just like us--ALL OF US--visiting God's Son in the stable in Bethlehem.

Peace,
Jeffri

If At First...

Back on December 21 I ran across a post by Greg Griffith on StandFirm lambasting the Presiding Bishop's choice of a Christmas card for this year. I wrote some of my own thoughts later that same day. At the time I wondered who the "at least one bishop" Greg referred to was. It looks like we have at least one possible answer: Jack Iker, the Bishop of Forth Worth.

Checking out my usual round of blogs this morning, I ran across this post by Susan Russell. Shortly after that an email from one of my listservs had a link to yesterday's post by Katie Sherrod. Both contain the text of a letter sent to the clergy and 2007 convention delegates of the Diocese of Fort Worth by the diocesan Standing Committee. The first paragraph reads:

The members of your Standing Committee thought you should be aware of this. The Presiding Bishop has done something which defies explanation. This is the Christmas card she sent to Bishop Iker and presumably other TEC bishops. Given the increasing polarization in TEC (and the Anglican Communion) today, the only reason we can see for her to make this choice is that she is only interested in pushing the polarization just that much further.

Hmmmmm....The only reason for her choice is "pushing the polarization just that much further?" And here I thought Katharine's card was a nice way of further exploring the Story and what it means to us. "At least one bishop" showed the card to Greg Griffith. Evidently, the StandFirm lambasting did not stir up enough of a reaction, so now we have Bishop Iker showing the card to his Standing Commission. So who is it that is trying to "[push] the polarization just that much further?"

Obviously, this is a case of "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

Peace,
Jeffri

Christmas Cards As A Look Into The Story

I don't send very many Christmas cards, but I do have a few friends that I like to send cards to. I try to find ones with religious themes. It is very difficult to find cards of the Nativity that do not portray Mary and Jesus as white, complete with blond hair and blue eyes. That goes for Joseph, shepherds, angels, and even the Wise Men. I finally settled on cards that depicted the Nativity in a "blue delft" silhouette. What I should have done was gone to the web site listed on the cards sent out by the Presiding Bishop this year and last year (http://www.bridgebuilding.com/index.htm).

Last year's card, shown to the right, shows three shepherds in distinctly Andean costume. I liked so much that I kept it. It is on the mantelpiece with my Nativities. It blends in nicely with the Peruvian Mother and Child with the two angels. I also like the way the baby Jesus is shown cuddled up with a lamb. I appreciate pictures that show the characters of the Nativity in different ways. One of my friends is an artist, and most years his Christmas cards are a "Joseph and Child." My favorite shows a laughing father and son at play.

This year's card from the Presiding Bishop, shown below, was even more thought provoking. It depicts three women visiting a mother and child. The child, sleeping on his mother's lap, looks to be about two--which fits the story of the wise men and the massacre of the innocents told in Matthew. The folks at StandFirm have taken exception to Katharine's and Richard's choice of the card. Greg Griffith, who posted the item, seems offended not only by the fact that the Magi are depicted as women, but also that the artwork is multicultural.

Greg's reaction to the multicultural aspect is a bit puzzling, since the Magi have traditionally been depicted multiculturally--one of them is usually a black African. More than that, they were the only non-Judeans recorded as visiting Jesus and his family during their time in Bethlehem. Again, many traditional interpretations point to the visit of the Wise Men as recognition of Jesus as the Savior by Gentiles. The message is that Jesus came for ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. There is nothing wrong with engaging in artistic interpretation to reinforce that message. The more we can visualize ourselves as part of The Story, the more integral it becomes in our lives.

This is particularly important when we remember that most of the world's Christians are, in fact, not Caucasian. When the missionaries went out with the colonizing armies, they took with them the predominant image of Jesus as a white man. This makes sense because European Christians depicted Jesus as a man, and as a child, like themselves--white. In spite of the fact that Jesus was definitely not white, the white Jesus remains the predominant image around the world. If the message is that Jesus became human, became one of us, then depicting him like ourselves, whatever our race or color, is one way to hold onto and understand more deeply that truth. If, on the other hand, the Bible is to be taken literally, then all depictions of Jesus, and his family, should show them as Semitic people. But even that image is jarring for "traditionalists" raised with pictures of a white Jesus and all white (except for that single Magi "of color") Nativities. So perhaps Greg would have preferred that Katharine and Richard selected something like the card shown at left.

As for depicting the Magi as women, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were in Bethlehem for a long time. They would have had many visitors, not just the handful documented in the Gospels. Who is to say that the three Wise Men in Matthew were the only ones to see the star, mark its importance, and make the journey to Bethlehem?

Quite frankly, the whole Nativity is layered in tradition and folklore, stories of everyday people who find the Christ child and his parents in the manger. Menotti's opera Amahl And The Night Visitors is just one example that comes to mind. Some of those everyday people would have been women. Some of those women would even have been Wise Women. So as we tell the story of Jesus and depict his life in our art, including images of people like us, no matter what race or gender, it only makes the story richer and more relevant to us and our lives. After all, isn't that the reason for season?

Peace,
Jeffri

Living In A Crucified Place

BILL MOYERS: You've even been criticized by some of your liberal colleagues in the American fellowship because you have called for a moratorium for a season on ordaining more gay Bishops. Why did you do that?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It was a very painful thing to do. My sense was that there might be hope of some kind of broader understanding if we were able to pause. Not go backwards, but pause.
BILL MOYERS: Is it fair to ask some aspiring gay or lesbian person who wants to become a Bishop, like Gene Robinson did in 2003, to wait?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: Is it fair? No. It's not fair.
BILL MOYERS: But it's necessary?
BISHOP KATHARINE JEFFERTS SCHORI: It's a crucified place to stand.
--From the Transcript of Bill Moyers Journal, broadcast June 8, 2007

I am glad that Katharine sees that what is being asked of the lesbian and gay members (not to mention the bisexual and transgender ones) of the Episcopal Church--and of the entire Anglican Communion--is unfair. I am glad she recognizes the difficulties it represents by calling it "a crucified place to stand." I find myself feeling deeply hurt that she continues asking us to stand in this "crucified place" without truly understanding the realities of it.

From the time we first become aware of who we are, lesbians and gays do not just stand in a crucified place, we live in a crucified place. It begins with schoolyard taunts directed at us and others--taunts that we do not at first fully understand. It continues in classrooms where teachers refuse to recognize the hurtfulness of these taunts, or do not see them as hurtful as racial and ethnic slurs, when used by students and even other teachers. We endure it in our churches and the streets of our communities as grown men and women fling insults and misinformation. We even suffer it within our own families.

Faggot. Dyke. Queer. Homo. Lesbo. Fairy.

The name calling is only the beginning and just the surface of what it means to live in this crucified place. There is massive familial and social pressure to not be honest about who we are and the realities of our lives. As larger numbers of us have dared to leave the Closet to live openly and honestly, and to work for our civil rights, religious and secular conservatives try to make us scapegoats for the moral decay of society. Within many of our churches we are called many other hurtful things.

Sinner. Heretic. Possessed. Unnatural. Immoral. Diseased.

We have been taunted, blamed, beaten, and even murdered. Some of us have taken our own lives rather than live in this crucified place. If only we would choose to be "normal," we are told, then we would not be subjected to this abuse. If only we would remain hidden, then everything would be all right. It would be preferable to the conservatives--and, truth be told, many moderates--for us to live in the crucified place out of sight so that their comfort zones are not breached.

So the Anglican Communion continues to squabble about whether or not the Episcopal Church can remain a member if it continues to move toward full inclusion of its lesbian and gay members. And once again, in a public forum, we lesbian and gay Episcopalians were asked by the head of our church to stand in a crucified place. Yet again a supposedly supportive heterosexual person in a leadership position has asked us to pay the price of a place at the table.

We are familiar with this crucified place because we have been living here most of our lives. The mostly unspoken implication is that the entire Episcopal Church is being asked to stand here. It is not. Heterosexual bishops are still being consecrated. Opposite gender marriages are still being blessed. Unless there is a moratorium on all consecrations and all marriages while the Anglican Communion sorts through these issues, then the heterosexual members of the Episcopal Church are not standing in this crucified place.

Peace,
Jeffri

The Devil Is In The Definitions

In her letter to Archbishop Peter Akinola urging him not to perform the installation of Martyn Minns as a bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America in the United States, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote,

...such action would not help the efforts of reconciliation that are taking place in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion as a whole.

Reconciliation. It is an action Katharine has urged us to consider and pursue again and again. My American Heritage College Dictionary (2002, p. 1163) defines reconciliation as

1. The act of reconciling. 2. The condition of being reconciled. 3. See penance 2.

Not particularly helpful, except for the third definition, which I will return to later. Looking at the definition of the root verb, [to] reconcile, the dictionary says

1. To reestablish a close relationship between. 2. To settle or resolve. 3. To bring (oneself) to accept: reconciled himself to the change in management. 4. To make compatible or consistent.

It appears to me that Katharine and others are urging some combination of the first two definitions. They want us to work at repairing and rebuilding our relationships within the Anglican Communion so that we can eventually resolve our differences--or at least learn to live together with our differences. The conservatives (I use the conservative/liberal terminology with reservations, but I find the reasserter/reappraiser language even more problematic), on the other hand, are pretty clear that their view of reconciliation involves penance, as in "The Reconciliation of a Penitent" found in our Book of Common Prayer.

For many of us, however, reconconciling the Episcopal Church with the more conservative elements within the Anglican Communion looks more like the definition of [to] reconcile found in the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (2001, p. 1612):

1. To cause (a person) to accept or be resigned to something not desired.

In the interest of staying in community as a Communion, perhaps we might want to find a different word, one with a definition on which we can all agree. Of course, we should probably work on a common definition of Communion as well...

Peace,
Jeffri

For Reading And Reflection

This just came across my desk this morning. Morehouse Publishing, an imprint of Church Publishing, Inc., posted free Reflection Guides to Katharine Jefferts Schori's A Wing and A Prayer. Written by Episcopal priest, author, and columnist the Rev. Lisa B. Hamilton especially for Lent, they could be adapted for any time.

Peace,
Jeffri

The Yammering Intensifies

This afternoon the Presiding Bishop notified the Diocese of South Carolina that she was "declaring null and void the election of The Very Rev. Mark Lawrence to be bishop of The Diocese of South Carolina." To say that this is a disappointment for the people of South Carolina who elected Mark Lawrence is a vast understatement. To say that a large number of conservatives is disappointed vastly underestimates the depth of their anger and bitterness.

Shortly after The Rev. J. Haden McCormick, President of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of South Carolina, announced the news, it hit the blogosphere. A look at the comments on a couple of the conservative blogs--titusonenine and Stand Firm, for example--will give you a feel for the anger out there. Name calling, personal slurs of Katharine, jabs at "815" (i.e., 815 Second Avenue, New York, the administrative offices of the Episcopal Church), and venomous comments directed at the liberals run on for multiple computer screens. That is not to say that all of the conservative comments are angry and venomous, just a very large majority of them.

Today the conservatives have a new entry for their Book of Martyrs: Fr. Mark Lawrence. He has already become a rallying cry for a conservative minority of the Episcopal Church. I expect that in the coming days and weeks he will become the latest lightning rod in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. It is not a comfortable place to be, as any lbgt Episcopalian can tell you.

Peace,
Jeffri

Katharine Speaks to The Church

Our Presiding Bishop has issued her first public statement regarding the results of the Primates Meeting in Dar es Salaam. Go and read it here.

My initial reaction is that, once again, lesbian and gay Episcopalians--along with lesbian and gay Anglicans across the Communion--are being asked to pay the price to maintain the Anglican Communion.

My emailbox and the Anglican blogosphere continue to be filled with reactions, commentary and outright raw pain. Katharine's words have not eased my fears for and deep sadness about the Epsicopal Church, or my place in it.

I have little else to say at this point.

Peace,
Jeffri

A Moment with Katharine

I stayed late at work yesterday because Katharine was doing a book signing in the Episcopal Church Center's soon-to-be-opened new bookstore. I took three copies of A Wing And A Prayer, her new book--one for me, one for my new boss who arrives on Monday, and one for Mom. I stood in line with a couple of my friends from work, and as we waited, it quickly became clear that Katharine was taking a moment to have a conversation with each person.

When I reached the table for my turn, I handed her each book in turn--each one with a yellow post-it on it so that I would remember which was whose. When I handed her Mom's and said it was for my mother, she smiled and asked if she should make it out the way I had it on the post-it, which, of course, said "Mom." No, I replied, her name is Barbara. She also remembered that my first name is not spelled in one of the usual ways and asked how it was spelled to make sure she wrote it correctly when she signed my copy.

As I left, I thanked her and wished her luck for next week. She smiled and said thank you--I did not need to add "at the Primates' meeting."

Katharine smiles a lot, and it is not one of those "this is my public smile that I've pasted on because I'm supposed to look happy" smiles. It is a genuine "I'm glad to see you" smile. And she listens. You feel that you have her complete attention while you are with her.

Later this evening, among the day's Episcopal News Service releases in my email in box, was the latest of Katharine's occasional short reflections. I have included it below, because I feel it is worth sharing.

Peace,
Jeffri

In this season: Christ in the stranger's guise
A reflection from the Presiding Bishop
Wednesday, February 07, 2007

[Episcopal News Service] Note to readers: With this posting, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori continues a series of occasional reflections for the people of the Episcopal Church. The reflections are also available on the Presiding Bishop's web pages at http://www.episcopalchurch.org/pb.

For the People of the Episcopal Church

As the primates of the Anglican Communion prepare to gather next week in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, I ask your prayers for all of us, and for our time together. I especially ask you to remember the mission that is our reason for being as the Anglican Communion--God's mission to heal this broken world. The primates gather for fellowship, study, and conversation at these meetings, begun less than thirty years ago. The ability to know each other and understand our various contexts is the foundation of shared mission. We cannot easily be partners with strangers.

That meeting ends just as Lent begins, and as we approach this season, I would suggest three particularly appropriate attitudes. Traditionally the season has been one in which candidates prepared for baptism through prayer, fasting, and acts of mercy. This year, we might all constructively pray for greater awareness and understanding of the strangers around us, particularly those strangers whom we are not yet ready or able to call friends. That awareness can only come with our own greater investment in discovering the image of God in those strangers. It will require an attitude of humility, recognizing that we can not possibly know the fullness of God if we are unable to recognize his hand at work in unlikely persons or contexts. We might constructively fast from a desire to make assumptions about the motives of those strangers not yet become friends. And finally, we might constructively focus our passions on those in whom Christ is most evident--the suffering, those on the margins, the forgotten, ignored, and overlooked of our world. And as we seek to serve that suffering servant made evident in our midst, we might reflect on what Jesus himself called us--friends (John 15:15).

Celtic Rune of Hospitality
I saw a stranger yesterday;
I put food in the eating place,
drink in the drinking place,
music in the listening place;
and in the sacred name of the Triune God
he blessed myself and my house,
my cattle and my dear ones,
and the lark said in her song:
Oft, Oft, Oft,
goes Christ in the stranger's guise.

Shalom,
Katharine